Moshe + Christianity
Emma
>From: joes...@hotmail.com (moshe)
>Newsgroups: alt.messianic,soc.culture.jewish
>Subject: Re: We did our job
>Date: 28 Jun 2004 19:53:02 -0700
>
>Christian beliefs are "poisonous" "repulsive" "tommy-rot".
>
>Case closed.
These are moshe's own words from
a very reliable source: alt.messianic 2004.
I confirm that they are moshe's words,
as I have seen the original quote.
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Cleo
news:cbr5g...@drn.newsguy.com...
Emma, this is what I found.
Cleo
From: Emma (emmas1...@newsguy.com)
Subject: ????!!
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 2004-04-06 03:20:22 PST
Good grief! .....
I came across this on the
internet. So here is proof that the
Christian Fundamentalists of America
have truly lost the plot (not that
proof is needed! :-)
http://www.promisekeepers.org/
I have never heard such a load of tommy-rot!
(Note to Cleo.... look at the men in this
NG!... and they all want to take control?? :-)
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha..... :-)
>
Hieron
What is moshe's problem with these people? This is an interdenominational
ecumenical organisation. Modern music, laughter... and promises to keep.
Many of moshe's movement are part of it, just as one of my teachers was
also. He thought it was great.
I don't want to serve as a judge over them. They stand or fall before God.
--
Hieron
Cleo
news:2kd0fj...@uni-berlin.de...
Hieron, look again at what I posted, the above is what Emma said.
Cleo
>
Emma
>>
>> From: Emma (emmas1...@newsguy.com)
>> Subject: ????!!
>> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
>> Date: 2004-04-06 03:20:22 PST
>>
>>
>> Good grief! .....
>>
>> I came across this on the
>> internet. So here is proof that the
>> Christian Fundamentalists of America
>> have truly lost the plot (not that
>> proof is needed! :-)
>>
>> http://www.promisekeepers.org/
>>
>> I have never heard such a load of tommy-rot!
>>
>> (Note to Cleo.... look at the men in this
>> NG!... and they all want to take control?? :-)
>> Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha..... :-)
>>
>>>
>
>What is moshe's problem with these people? This is an interdenominational
>ecumenical organisation. Modern music, laughter... and promises to keep.
>
>Many of moshe's movement are part of it, just as one of my teachers was
>also. He thought it was great.
>
>I don't want to serve as a judge over them. They stand or fall before God.
>
Ooops, Hieron! That was my post.
Care to have an argument about it? :-)
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Emma
>
>"Emma" <em...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:cbr5g...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>> >From: joes...@hotmail.com (moshe)
>> >Newsgroups: alt.messianic,soc.culture.jewish
>> >Subject: Re: We did our job
>> >Date: 28 Jun 2004 19:53:02 -0700
>> >
>> >Christian beliefs are "poisonous" "repulsive" "tommy-rot".
>> >
>> >Case closed.
>>
>> These are moshe's own words from
>> a very reliable source: alt.messianic 2004.
>>
>> I confirm that they are moshe's words,
>> as I have seen the original quote.
>>
>> ~~~~~
>> Emma
>> ~~~~~
>
>Emma, this is what I found.
>Cleo
>
Yes, Cleo, but you are missing my point.
Moshe takes quotes from the Talmud *out
of context* and posts them here. He then
declares that it is disgusting for such
a thing to be taught within Judaism.
Of course, that is not true. Judaism doesn't
teach these things. He is twisting the
text for his own purposes.
I'm just proving how easy it is to
do something like that to him.
These words above are taken from one his posts, but
if they are taken out of context they
can mean something entirely different to
the original intended meaning.
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Cleo
But Emma, what does it really profit you to do this? If you believe that
someone is doing this and then you copy them, even to prove a point, are
you not acting just like them?
Cleo
>
> ~~~~~
> Emma
> ~~~~~
>
cockroach
@okepread05:
you are righ
but the point is the big mo said it
are you saying that emma took the works of that evangelical christian
out of context
--
____________________________
You begin with the Jewish question
Saul Bellow
Ravelstein
____________________________
Cleo
news:Xns95174AF864...@207.225.159.6...
Why do you have a need to know? You know that in a war of words nobody wins.
Cleo
cockroach
i suggest you look at the post again
two other poster have now verified they saw the same thing
this condemns by the law of witnesses
the fundalmentalist evangelical christian posted:
From: joes...@hotmail.com (moshe)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: We did our job
Date: 28 Jun 2004 19:53:02 -0700
Christian beliefs are "poisonous" "repulsive" "tommy-rot".
**********************************************************
Emma
>
>
>"Emma" <em...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:cbrjn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <qDbEc.83749$%T.32088@okepread05>, Cleo says...
>>
>>
>> Moshe takes quotes from the Talmud *out
>> of context* and posts them here. He then
>> declares that it is disgusting for such
>> a thing to be taught within Judaism.
>> Of course, that is not true. Judaism doesn't
>> teach these things. He is twisting the
>> text for his own purposes.
>>
>> I'm just proving how easy it is to
>> do something like that to him.
>>
>> These words above are taken from one his posts, but
>> if they are taken out of context they
>> can mean something entirely different to
>> the original intended meaning.
>
>But Emma, what does it really profit you to do this? If you believe that
>someone is doing this and then you copy them, even to prove a point, are
>you not acting just like them?
>
There is one important difference though.
Everyone here knows what moshe's beliefs are.
Nobody is going to believe what I posted.
How many Christian posters know what the Talmud
says? Moshe can spread dangerous lies about
Judaism and they may be believed. I doubt if many
people are bothering to check his "quotes". They
may well just take the word of a "Christian".
So I'm suggesting that he should stop trying to
spread rumours of perversion. He has gone beyond
what is reasonable criticism and has started to
indulge in evil.
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Cleo
Emma, look at it this way. How many Christians here really care what the
Talmud says? To most, if not all, what is important is what the Tanakh and
the NT has to say. It is the Jews that think highly of the Talmud/ Oral
Law.
Cleo
Emma
>
>
>Emma, look at it this way. How many Christians here really care what the
>Talmud says? To most, if not all, what is important is what the Tanakh and
>the NT has to say. It is the Jews that think highly of the Talmud/ Oral
>Law.
>Cleo
>>
Why do anti-Semitic websites think it is
important to spread these rumours about
the Talmud though?
And there is a history to this. This sort
of thing has been responsible for persecution.
It could easily happen again unless its stopped
in its tracks.
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Cleo
> In article <PbgEc.84976$%T.21372@okepread05>, Cleo says...
> >
> >
> >Emma, look at it this way. How many Christians here really care what the
> >Talmud says? To most, if not all, what is important is what the Tanakh
and
> >the NT has to say. It is the Jews that think highly of the Talmud/ Oral
> >Law.
> >Cleo
> >>
>
> Why do anti-Semitic websites think it is
> important to spread these rumours about
> the Talmud though?
Fear
>
> And there is a history to this. This sort
> of thing has been responsible for persecution.
> It could easily happen again unless its stopped
> in its tracks.
It is hard to fight against words. The best way to offset anti anything is
to talk about the positive. I post in another NG that mainly has atheists
and liberals. It was a rough road in the beginning and a couple of people
have plonked me. You ought to see some of the junk they bring up about
Christians and conservatives, but instead of trying to make them see how
wrong they are I use the time to toot my own horn and tell about things
religious in such a way that it offsets the wrong they are saying. After
awhile they quick saying things about Christians because they don't want to
get me going again. If someone says something wrong or bad about a certain
thing, don't try to make them look bad, just print what you feel is the
truth. Like, (Example) so and so said a bad thing about a certain subject
close to your heart. Post where did you see that at. I looked and this is
what I see. Or something along that line.
Cleo
>
> ~~~~~
> Emma
> ~~~~~
>
cockroach
news:EeeEc.84449$%T.25526@okepread05:
what pleases me is that there is another christian who sees through the
big mo
moshe
**********
I not only give the quotes, I also try to find Jewish Web sites that
cite the quotes and give the links to those sites so that the quotes
and their contexts can be seen by the readers.
In your example above you did not cite the post's thread name and date
so that the quote could be verified the way that I always do.
For example, I give links to Mishpocha which admits the wording of the
Talmud passages in its attempt to defend such Talmud passages.
*Nobody* has shown any "context" which OK's these passages from
Talmud:
-------------------------------------------------------------
"R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for
it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; it is our
inheritance, not theirs."
- Sanhedrin 59a
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Resh Lakish also said: A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves
death, for it is written, And a day and a night they shall not rest"
- Sanhedrin 58b
-------------------------------------------------------------
"He replied: Wretch! Are they not called asses? For it is written:
Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses."
- Berachot 58a of Talmud
-------------------------------------------------------------
R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may
be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's
brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.
- quoted from Sanhedrin 55b of Talmud
--------------------------------
R. Jeremiah of Difti said: We also learnt the following: A maiden aged
three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if
her deceased husband's brother cohabited with her, she becomes his.
- quoted from Sanhedrin 69a of Talmud
--------------------------------
Raba said, We also learned a similar Baraitha: A girl who is three
years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation; if a levir
cohabited with her, he has thereby acquired her; one incurs through
her the guilt of intercourse with a married woman;
- quoted from Yebamoth 57b of Talmud
--------------------------------
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the
age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it
is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying
with him, keep alive for yourselves [Num. XXXI, 18], and Phinehas
surely was with them. And the Rabbis? — [These were kept alive] as
bondmen and bondwomen. If so, a proselyte whose age is three years
and one day should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be
explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a
contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by
lying with him, but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this
it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they
have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is
also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by
lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, but do not spare them if
they have known. Consequently it must be said that Scripture speaks
of one who is fit for cohabitation.
It was also taught likewise: And every woman that hath known man;
Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. You say, 'Of one
who is fit for cohabitation'; perhaps it is not so but of one who had
actual intercourse? — As Scripture stated, But all women children,
that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that
Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.
Whence did they know? — R. Hana b. Bizna replied in the name of R.
Simeon the Pious: They were made to pass before the frontplate. If
the face of anyone turned pale it was known that she was fit for
cohabitation; if it did not turn pale it was known that she was unfit
for cohabitation.
R. Nahman said: Dropsy is a manifestation of lewdness.
Similarly, it is said, And they found among the inhabitants of
Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by
lying with him [Judges XXI, 12]; whence did they know it? R. Kahana
replied: They made them sit upon the mouth of a wine-cask. [Through
anyone who had] had previous intercourse, the odour penetrated;
through a virgin, its odour did not penetrate. They should have been
made to pass before the frontplate! — R. Kahana son of R. Nathan
replied: It is written, for acceptance, for acceptance but not for
punishment. If so, the same should have applied at Midian also! R.
Ashi replied: It is written, 'unto them', implying unto them for
acceptance but not for punishment; unto idolaters, however, even for
punishment.
R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah
is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. Said R. Zera to R. Jacob b.
Idi: Did you hear this explicitly or did you learn it by a deduction?
What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi related: There
was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose
inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an
enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the
age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to
live with a priest. The other replied: I heard it explicitly. And
what [matters it] if it was learned by deduction? — It is possible
that there it was different; since the marriage had already taken
place he sanctioned it; for, indeed, both Rab and R. Johanan stated: A
priest may not marry one who is adolescent or 'wounded', but if
already married, he may continue to live with her. How now! There it
is quite correct [to sanction the marriage since in any case] she
would ultimately become adolescent while she will be with him, and
she would also ultimately become a be'ulah while with him; but here,
would she ultimately become a harlot while with him? R. Safra taught
[that he arrived at it] by deduction, and, having raised the
difficulty, answered it in the same way.
A certain priest married a proselyte who was under the age of three
years and one day. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean
by] this? — The other replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the
name of R. Joshua b. Levi that the halachah is in agreement with R.
Simeon b. Yohai. 'Go', the first said, 'and arrange for her release,
or else I will pull R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear'.
- quoted from Yebamoth 60b of Talmud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Slade Farney
> Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<cbrjn...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <qDbEc.83749$%T.32088@okepread05>, Cleo says...
> > >"Emma" <em...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cbr5g...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > here. He then declares that it is disgusting for such
> > a thing to be taught within Judaism. Of course, that is not true.
> > Judaism doesn't teach these things. He is twisting the text for
> > his own purposes.
>
> **********
>
> I not only give the quotes, I also try to find Jewish Web sites that
> cite the quotes and give the links to those sites so that the quotes
> and their contexts can be seen by the readers.
In that case, add this one to your collection. This web site tells
you how vastly superior the Jewish soul is to any Gentile soul. This
page sites many sources in the Talmud and Maimonides to prove its
premise -- it is a scholarly work by a notable rabbi.
And it is contemporary.
Gentiles in Halacha by R' Bar-Chayim
http://www.daatemet.org/daathalacha/en_gentiles.html
"The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is
defined as 'man,' and a Gentile." That is to say, any notion of
equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. ...
"What arises from all the aforementioned is that in the words of the
Prophets, and also in the words of our Sages OBM, the Gentiles are
thought of as animals. Even so, it clearly does not mean that they are
actually treated as animals, and there are distinctions between
Gentiles and animals, for we have already seen that the Halacha deems
stealing from a Gentile to be forbidden by the Torah's law, while it
is clear that stealing from a beast is not considered stealing.
Likewise the Mechilta says that judgement of one who intentionally
kills a Gentile is given to Heaven and, of course, this is not the
case regarding an animal. Also, the Gentiles were commanded to fulfill
the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah -- in contrast, of course,
to animals. Nevertheless, we have seen that the status of the Gentiles
in Halacha is similar to that of animals in many respects, and
generally speaking, there is no real distinctions made between them
(further on we will expand slightly this on deep concept).
[http://www.daatemet.org.il/daathalacha/en_gentiles4.html]
"... Jews, therefore, are the "true humanity," whereas the Gentiles
are only "on a low level of humanity"; Jews "are true humanity from
its authentic roots," whereas the other nations are "all on the level
of Man in his fallen state" -- and therefore "are treated as ones
belonging to completely different genera."
"One who reads the words of the Ramchal will notice how precisely he
chose them and how accurately they represent the words of Rabbi Shimon
bar Yochai, "You are called men."
"In the book "Orot," Orot Yisrael chapter 5, article 10 (page 156),
Rabbi Kook wrote: "The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its
independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the
soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and
deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of
an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity,
while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality."
[http://www.daatemet.org.il/daathalacha/en_gentiles5.html]
If this is not "hate speech" by the definions of the Canadian Jewish
Congress, the US Congress current legislative agenda, the ADL, the
Simon Wiesenthal Center Musem of Tolerance, and a dozen other Jewish
"watchdog" groups, then there is no hate speech anywhere.
--Slade
Hieron
What newsreader do you use that doesn't put quotes at the beginning of
lines? I couldn't tell where your posts stopped and the quotes started.
Sorry to moshe then. And I am shocked that Emma condemns this movement.
--
Hieron
Hieron
OK. What's your problem, bishop?
--
Hieron
Emma
says...
>
>joes...@hotmail.com (moshe) wrote in message
>news:<40f21e75.04062...@posting.google.com>...
>>Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<cbrjn...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> > In article <qDbEc.83749$%T.32088@okepread05>, Cleo says...
>> > >"Emma" <em...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:cbr5g...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >
>> > Moshe takes quotes from the Talmud *out of context* and posts them
>> > here. He then declares that it is disgusting for such
>> > a thing to be taught within Judaism. Of course, that is not true.
>> > Judaism doesn't teach these things. He is twisting the text for
>> > his own purposes.
>>
>> **********
>>
>> I not only give the quotes, I also try to find Jewish Web sites that
>> cite the quotes and give the links to those sites so that the quotes
>> and their contexts can be seen by the readers.
>
>In that case, add this one to your collection. This web site tells
>you how vastly superior the Jewish soul is to any Gentile soul.
[...]
Moshe has already discovered this website, Slade.
He is doing your work for you here, so you can
go back to the other NG's and continue promoting
"come-and-hear".
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Patricia Heil
"Slade Farney" <sfa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:abe991f.04062...@posting.google.com...
Nothing of any consequence since he is wilfully ignorant and has even posted
lies.
Cleo
I use OE and no one seem to have a problem before. But then I have never
C&P'ed a post before.
Cleo
Emma
>
>>>What is moshe's problem with these people? This is an interdenominational
>>>ecumenical organisation. Modern music, laughter... and promises to keep.
>>>
>>>Many of moshe's movement are part of it, just as one of my teachers was
>>>also. He thought it was great.
>>>
>>>I don't want to serve as a judge over them. They stand or fall before God.
>>>
>>
>> Ooops, Hieron! That was my post.
>> Care to have an argument about it? :-)
>
>OK. What's your problem, bishop?
>
I don't condemn all of it.
I believe in marriage and I think
divorce should be a rare thing (this
is where Rob and I disagree. He is
more accepting of divorce). So if it
promotes family values then that's
fine, but I don't like the idea of men controlling
everything and women playing the submissive
role. That's Paul speaking (forget Paul!)
I think it encourages bullying.
Szia,
Puspok Emma (what a horrible sounding word!
Is it the right one?)
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
cockroach
while i do have problems with a lot of what pk did and believed there is
one thing they do need to be praised for.
i have pointed out in the past how the church is american is the most
segregated part of our society. white churches with few black members.
black churches with few white members.
pk was one of the few christian organizations that tried to bridge this
gap. this time of outlook is even rarer among the evangelical branch of
christianity that pk is using tied to
taxiqnotincome
Patricia Heil wrote:
So your position is that hate speech, so long is it orginates from a pro Jewish
source, is not of any consequence.
Why are you purposefully engendering hate?
Patty
> you how vastly superior the Jewish soul is to any Gentile soul. This
> page sites many sources in the Talmud and Maimonides to prove its
> premise -- it is a scholarly work by a notable rabbi.
Well, then you must be also aware that Jesus in the NT referred to Gentiles
as "dogs". Are you going to condemn the NT, Moshe?
Patty
Susan Cohen
"taxiqnotincome" <taxiqno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40E36DE9...@yahoo.com...
> Why are you purposefully engendering hate?
Why are you projecting?
Susan
Hieron
Hieron
It is not about men controlling everything, but men and women having
different roles within the family. God created the woman to be man's
helper, not his slave, neither his ruler. Thus, He created her neither from
the foot, nor from the head, but from his side, to be his equal and to be
under his protection.
It should read püspök (I am not sute how this will appear once posted).
Actually, the thing above the bum of the chicken (from which those long
feathers grow) is called similarly "püspök falat", that is, püspök bite ;-)
--
Hieron
Cleo
> Cleo wrote:
>
> > "Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
> > news:2kfivoF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> Cleo wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
> >> > news:2kd0fj...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> >> Cleo wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Emma" <em...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:cbr5g...@drn.newsguy.com...
snipped
> >> >> Hieron
> >> >
> >> > Hieron, look again at what I posted, the above is what Emma said.
> >> > Cleo
> >> >>
> >>
> >> What newsreader do you use that doesn't put quotes at the beginning of
> >> lines? I couldn't tell where your posts stopped and the quotes started.
> >
> > I use OE and no one seem to have a problem before. But then I have never
> > C&P'ed a post before.
> > Cleo
> >
> >>
> >> Sorry to moshe then. And I am shocked that Emma condemns this movement.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Hieron
> >>
>
> You may try Mozilla or Thunderbird from www.mozilla.org
I have heard too many bad things about them from some computer guys.
Cleo
>
>
>
> --
>
> Hieron
>
Slade Farney
> > In that case, add this one to your collection. This web site tells
> > you how vastly superior the Jewish soul is to any Gentile soul. This
> > page sites many sources in the Talmud and Maimonides to prove its
> > premise -- it is a scholarly work by a notable rabbi.
>
> Well, then you must be also aware that Jesus in the NT referred to Gentiles
> as "dogs". Are you going to condemn the NT, Moshe?
>
> Patty
There are many things in the Bible I do not agree with, but I have
never heard of that one.
But why do I have to ask you for the reference? Why don't you give
the reference up front like a gentileman?
--Slade
Patty
You don't have to ask me for anything. Go to an online concordance, look up
the word dogs.
Patty
Jan Pompe
You should know it.
Patricia Heil
Fine, but such an expert as you should be able to find it. At a bare
minimum, you should be able to search any of the English language Bibles on
the Web for free and report that it either isn't there or what verse it's
in.
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Ooops, Hieron! That was my post.
>>>> Care to have an argument about it? :-)
>>>
>>>OK. What's your problem, bishop?
>>>
>>
>> I don't condemn all of it.
>>
>> I believe in marriage and I think
>> divorce should be a rare thing (this
>> is where Rob and I disagree. He is
>> more accepting of divorce). So if it
>> promotes family values then that's
>> fine, but I don't like the idea of men controlling
>> everything and women playing the submissive
>> role. That's Paul speaking (forget Paul!)
>> I think it encourages bullying.
>>
>> Szia,
>> Puspok Emma (what a horrible sounding word!
>> Is it the right one?)
>
>It is not about men controlling everything, but men and women having
>different roles within the family. God created the woman to be man's
>helper, not his slave, neither his ruler. Thus, He created her neither from
>the foot, nor from the head, but from his side, to be his equal and to be
>under his protection.
How can there be equality when the
man makes all the decisions and the
woman submits to his authority?
No way is that equality. That
is Fundamentalist Christian
teaching, but it's not mainstream
Christian teaching.
>
>It should read püspök (I am not sute how this will appear once posted).
>
>Actually, the thing above the bum of the chicken (from which those long
>feathers grow) is called similarly "püspök falat", that is, püspök bite ;-)
>
Oh :-) In that case I think I will be
"Plebanos Emma" (I know there should be some
thingamabobs over the "e" and "o" but I
don't know how to do that on my computer)
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Slade Farney
Interesting. It must be like that passage in the Talmud where the
rabbis agree that all the property of the Gentiles really belongs to
Israel. The property of Gentiles is equivalent to unclaimed land in
the desert, and the first Jew who lays claim to it, owns it. Such is
God's own ruling.
Of course, I don't have to give you a reference or prove it to you --
you are so familiar with the Talmud, it is not necessary.
--Slade
Slade Farney
Interesting. It reminds me of a passage in the Talmud where the
rabbis agree that the property of Gentiles is like unclaimed land in
the desert -- the first Jew who lays claim to it, owns it. Thus, a
Jew cannot commit "theft" from a Gentile, even when the Jew takes the
Gentile's property or defrauds him.
Of course, I don't have to supply you with references -- you are so
familiar with the Talmud, you know exactly where that passage is.
--Slade
Patricia Heil
Your lies are very familiar. Which doesn't change the fact that you are
ducking the question because you are too lazy or stupid to do your own work.
Rob Strom
About 30 seconds of looking up "dogs" in the online RSV yields:
(Matthew 15:22ff)
And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy
on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon."
But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him,
saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us."
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me."
And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread
and throw it to the dogs."
--
Rob Strom
Patty
> rabbis agree that all the property of the Gentiles really belongs to
> Israel. The property of Gentiles is equivalent to unclaimed land in
> the desert, and the first Jew who lays claim to it, owns it. Such is
> God's own ruling.
>
> Of course, I don't have to give you a reference or prove it to you --
> you are so familiar with the Talmud, it is not necessary.
>
> --Slade
Thanks for the reply, Slade. I wasn't trying to be mean or difficult, it's
just that I have spent endless hours typing references only to have people
trash my reply without even bothering to read it. But if you sincerely want
a reference, I would be more than happy to get one for you.
Patty
Patty
Patty
bushbadee
not refer to gentiles
bushbadee
Here is one
1. Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to
you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.
2. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the fl
non of them refers to gentiles as I see ith though.
bushbadee
tHERE ARE a number of places in the NT where dogs are mentioned, about 6
but none of them calls nonjews dogs and there are a couple of mentions of
throwing food to the dogs or casting pearls before swine.
But none say they refer to gentiles.
Slade Farney
Are you referring to Matthew 15:22ff?
Patty, the text is provided by someone else in this thread. To be
frank, I don't know what that text means. In one place, the apostles
ask Jesus to ignore the woman, but Jesus turns to the woman and speaks
to her. But what He says implies His favors are not for her. Then He
performs a miracle and makes her daughter well anyway.
I don't know. If the Scripture is taken as utter "Gospel" truth, it
could only be consistent with itself if we imagine Jesus is mocking
his disciples when he says: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel," and "It is not fair to take the children's bread and
throw it to the dogs."
But that is reading excessively into the text. And yet there is no
meaning to be drawn from a text that is internally inconsistent. It
is also inconsistent with other passages, like the words of Jesus in
Mark 13:10 "And the gospel must first be published among all nations."
I must assume that the Bible is not a perfect historical record, and
also that the text has been damaged sometime in its original writing,
or in its history of copying and translation -- intentionally or
accidentally. Or it has no meaning at all. Who can say?
--Slade
Hieron
> In article <2kih8bF...@uni-berlin.de>, Hieron says...
>>It is not about men controlling everything, but men and women having
>>different roles within the family. God created the woman to be man's
>>helper, not his slave, neither his ruler. Thus, He created her neither
>>from the foot, nor from the head, but from his side, to be his equal and
>>to be under his protection.
>
> How can there be equality when the
> man makes all the decisions and the
> woman submits to his authority?
> No way is that equality. That
> is Fundamentalist Christian
> teaching, but it's not mainstream
> Christian teaching.
Fundamental Christianty teaches the following:
The husband is to discuss everything with his wife and they pray together
about the matter. If they come to an agreement, well done. If they still
cannot agree, then the man has to make the decision, as responsibility -
since he is to be the head of the household - rests upon him before God. By
making a decision he alone takes responsibility for the outcome.
When there is a disagreement between husband and wife, a decision is still
to be made. The biblical authority belongs to the husband, that after all
other avenues were exhausted, he must decide over the matter.
Otherwise how can a family function? The wife wants to go left, while the
husband wants to go right. It reminds me of the following:
Gen. 3:1 "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"
Since they took an independent step from God, this was to become their
destiny - a constant power struggle between husband and wife: but the
husband was to have the authority.
Compare it to what God said to Cain:
Gen. 4:7 "And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door; and its
desire is for you, and you shall rule over it."
I appeasr these desires have to do with sin.
It was Cain's responsibility to conquer sin. Similarly, divine authority was
given to man over the woman.
>>It should read püspök (I am not sute how this will appear once posted).
>>
>>Actually, the thing above the bum of the chicken (from which those long
>>feathers grow) is called similarly "püspök falat", that is, püspök bite
>>;-)
>>
>
> Oh :-) In that case I think I will be
> "Plebanos Emma" (I know there should be some
> thingamabobs over the "e" and "o" but I
> don't know how to do that on my computer)
Use US(International) keyboard map, press *'*, then *e*, it will give you
*é*.
Press *"*, then *o* or *u*, it will give you *ö* and *ü*, etc.
It might be easier to simply write: *pap*, which is simply a priest ;-)
--
Hieron
Padraic Brown
>Emma wrote:
>
>> In article <2kih8bF...@uni-berlin.de>, Hieron says...
>>>It is not about men controlling everything, but men and women having
>>>different roles within the family. God created the woman to be man's
>>>helper, not his slave, neither his ruler. Thus, He created her neither
>>>from the foot, nor from the head, but from his side, to be his equal and
>>>to be under his protection.
>>
>> How can there be equality when the
>> man makes all the decisions and the
>> woman submits to his authority?
>> No way is that equality. That
>> is Fundamentalist Christian
>> teaching, but it's not mainstream
>> Christian teaching.
>
>Fundamental Christianty teaches the following:
>
>The husband is to discuss everything with his wife and they pray together
>about the matter. If they come to an agreement, well done. If they still
>cannot agree, then the man has to make the decision, as responsibility -
>since he is to be the head of the household - rests upon him before God. By
>making a decision he alone takes responsibility for the outcome.
In other words, the guy gets whatever he wants. That is not equality.
Equality is this: when they can not agree, they continue to pray and
discuss the matter until a mutually satisfactory compromise that
addresses the problem can be reached. Anything less devalues 50% of
the relationship.
Now, if the woman GIVES her choice over to the man - or vice versa,
the man gives his choice over to the woman - in order to bring a swift
end to the argument, that's all well and good. This can be a useful
strategy when a couple have differing strengths or passions.
If you want to be the "man" and steal responsibility from your woman,
do it the right way and go on over to Sudan or similar and buy
yourself a slave. You can nňt coopt the responsibilty of a free woman
and do anything other than call her your slave.
>When there is a disagreement between husband and wife, a decision is still
>to be made. The biblical authority belongs to the husband, that after all
>other avenues were exhausted, he must decide over the matter.
>Otherwise how can a family function?
It functions on compromise and accomodation. Both halves of its head -
the Mother and the Father - comming to terms and agreements. Sometimes
you have to give over to your wife, sometimes she gives over to you.
Sometimes neither of you gets exactly what you had planned to get. And
in the end, hopefully you can see that both of you got good enough and
be thankful for it.
Your model is very much the paterfamilias, where the man has all the
choice and gets all the goodies; and the woman simply has to put up
with it cos she hasn't got a penis. That may have been sufficient for
ignorant primitives, but we ought to expect better of ouselves
anymore.
Et sim. snipped.
Padraic.
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
moshe
**********
Since Patty was the one who brought up the New Testament passage, it
was *Patty* who had the responsibilty to state book, chapter, and
verse number that she was talking about.
Just as when I refer to a Talmud passage, it is my responsibility to
state tractate and folio number.
- moshe
Rob Strom
> Emma wrote:
>
...
>
> When there is a disagreement between husband and wife, a decision is still
> to be made. The biblical authority belongs to the husband, that after all
> other avenues were exhausted, he must decide over the matter.
>
That is only Pauline, not the Jewish or Christian position.
> Otherwise how can a family function? The wife wants to go left, while the
> husband wants to go right. It reminds me of the following:
>
> Gen. 3:1 "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"
As you would say, a dispensation has passed between those two generations.
>
> Since they took an independent step from God, this was to become their
> destiny - a constant power struggle between husband and wife: but the
> husband was to have the authority.
>
> Compare it to what God said to Cain:
>
> Gen. 4:7 "And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door; and its
> desire is for you, and you shall rule over it."
>
I agree with that statement; most Pauline Christians repudiate
that statement, claiming that nobody can rule over sin.
> I appeasr these desires have to do with sin.
> It was Cain's responsibility to conquer sin. Similarly, divine authority was
> given to man over the woman.
>
Not to all men, no.
>
> >>It should read püspök (I am not sute how this will appear once posted).
> >>
> >>Actually, the thing above the bum of the chicken (from which those long
> >>feathers grow) is called similarly "püspök falat", that is, püspök bite
> >>;-)
> >>
> >
> > Oh :-) In that case I think I will be
> > "Plebanos Emma" (I know there should be some
> > thingamabobs over the "e" and "o" but I
> > don't know how to do that on my computer)
No. I think Emma Püspök would be correct, as originally suggested
(except I think correct Hungarian has the title at the end;
Hieron would be the authority on this). I think Plebános is
more like a simple pastor than a leader like Emma.
You probably need to address her as Nagyságos Asszony
or Felseg, or something like that.
>
> It might be easier to simply write: *pap*, which is simply a priest ;-)
A Napsugár Robika Egyházban nincsen semmi pap.
Szia,
Robika Biboros
Roy Jose Lorr
Emma wrote:
> In article <2kfj0oF...@uni-berlin.de>, Hieron says...
> >
> >>>What is moshe's problem with these people? This is an interdenominational
> >>>ecumenical organisation. Modern music, laughter... and promises to keep.
> >>>
> >>>Many of moshe's movement are part of it, just as one of my teachers was
> >>>also. He thought it was great.
> >>>
> >>>I don't want to serve as a judge over them. They stand or fall before God.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ooops, Hieron! That was my post.
> >> Care to have an argument about it? :-)
> >
> >OK. What's your problem, bishop?
> >
>
> I don't condemn all of it.
>
> I believe in marriage and I think
> divorce should be a rare thing (this
> is where Rob and I disagree. He is
> more accepting of divorce). So if it
> promotes family values then that's
> fine, but I don't like the idea of men controlling
> everything and women playing the submissive
> role. That's Paul speaking (forget Paul!)
> I think it encourages bullying.
Either you believe God's Word or you don't.
Ge 3:16 Unto the woman He said: ‘I will greatly multiply thy pain
and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire
shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Hieron
Fundamentalists teach.
--
Hieron
Hieron
> Hieron <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
>> When there is a disagreement between husband and wife, a decision is
>> still to be made. The biblical authority belongs to the husband, that
>> after all other avenues were exhausted, he must decide over the matter.
>>
>
> That is only Pauline, not the Jewish or Christian position.
It is a Christian position, for they accept Pauline theology.
>> Otherwise how can a family function? The wife wants to go left, while the
>> husband wants to go right. It reminds me of the following:
>>
>> Gen. 3:1 "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over
>> you"
>
> As you would say, a dispensation has passed between those two generations.
I am not a dispensationalist :-)
>> Since they took an independent step from God, this was to become their
>> destiny - a constant power struggle between husband and wife: but the
>> husband was to have the authority.
>>
>> Compare it to what God said to Cain:
>>
>> Gen. 4:7 "And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door; and its
>> desire is for you, and you shall rule over it."
>>
>
> I agree with that statement; most Pauline Christians repudiate
> that statement, claiming that nobody can rule over sin.
I disagree with the statement of trinitarians that sin cannot be resisted.
>> I appeasr these desires have to do with sin.
>> It was Cain's responsibility to conquer sin. Similarly, divine authority
>> was given to man over the woman.
>>
>
> Not to all men, no.
To husbands, I meant. But I only gave Emma the Fundamentalist theology on
marriage.
>> >>It should read püspök (I am not sute how this will appear once posted).
>> >>
>> >>Actually, the thing above the bum of the chicken (from which those long
>> >>feathers grow) is called similarly "püspök falat", that is, püspök bite
>> >>;-)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Oh :-) In that case I think I will be
>> > "Plebanos Emma" (I know there should be some
>> > thingamabobs over the "e" and "o" but I
>> > don't know how to do that on my computer)
>
> No. I think Emma Püspök would be correct, as originally suggested
> (except I think correct Hungarian has the title at the end;
> Hieron would be the authority on this). I think Plebános is
> more like a simple pastor than a leader like Emma.
>
> You probably need to address her as Nagyságos Asszony
> or Felseg, or something like that.
Felség is the title of a king. Nagyságos Asszony is the title of a wealthy
woman.
I am not sure about religious titles. Püspök is for Catholics and
Reformation high official. The Reformation and Baptists have Lelkész while
the Catholics have pap.
I am not really sure of all these titles.
>> It might be easier to simply write: *pap*, which is simply a priest ;-)
>
> A Napsugár Robika Egyházban nincsen semmi pap.
And why not? The Catholics have fathers, so Emma could be a mother (anya).
Emma Anya. Sounds good.
> Robika Biboros
Not Pope? I am disappointed.
--
Hieron
moshe
> Hieron <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message news:<2knk04F...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > Emma wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > When there is a disagreement between husband and wife, a decision is still
> > to be made. The biblical authority belongs to the husband, that after all
> > other avenues were exhausted, he must decide over the matter.
> >
>
> That is only Pauline, not the Jewish or Christian position.
***********
See below.
Plus the criticism in Isaiah 3:12 that " children are their oppressors
and women rule over them"
**************
> > Gen. 3:1 "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"
>
> As you would say, a dispensation has passed between those two generations.
*************************
--------------------------
To the woman He said, "I will greatly increase your sorrow and your
pregnancy. You will give birth to children with pain. Your desire will
be for your husband, and he will dominate you."
- Genesis 3:16 according to
http://www.tachash.org/texis/vtx/chverse/search.html
-------------------------
Your desire will be for your husband.
For marital relations. And, yet, you will not have the audacity to
demand it outright from him, but, rather, "he will dominate you."
[I.e.] all [the initiative] will come from him and not from you.[213]
[213] Ibid. [Eiruvin 100b]
- Rashi on Genesis 3:16 according to
http://www.tachash.org/texis/vtx/chverse/+uwwBmespKRXewtwwwxFqrHnDn5o5qFqAgrwpBnGaXvmFqDeR8qxG5neWykDXW_euxww/search2.html#hit1
----------------------
One approach within the commentators is to assert that the conquering
that is being referred to is related to the interaction between men
and women. We saw in Faxsheet #7 one way of applying this approach -
that the conquering that is being referred to in this gemara is the
restraint a man places on the behaviour of the woman, specifically
preventing her from going out to the market place and becoming a
yitzonit, a gadabout.
- quoted from "Women in Judaism" at
http://www.nishma.org/articles/women%20in%20judaism/w8.htm
-------------------------
Another approach that ties kivshu'ha to the male-female relationship
is presented by Maharsha, Yevamot 65b. He simply ties it to the
concept - usually identified with Bereishit 2:16, v'hu yimshal bach,
"and he shall rule over you" - that a man exercises general authority
over his wife.
- quoted from "Women in Judaism" at
http://www.nishma.org/articles/women%20in%20judaism/w8.htm
--------------------------------------
The fact that the husband does seem to have some dominance
halachically is supported by such sources as Mishna Keritot 6:9 and
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 15:20 and is a matter for further
investigation. The question at this time, though, is the connection
between these halachot and the curse of v'hu yimshal bach which is
intended as a punishment-curse and not, it would seem, an optimum
ideal which would be implied by halachic recognition. We do, though,
find sources which quote v'hu yimshal bach as a source for these
halachot. See, for examples, the Likutim on the mishna in Keritut and
Torah Temima, Bereishit 3:16, note 22.
- quoted from "Women in Judaism" at
http://www.nishma.org/articles/women%20in%20judaism/w8.htm
------------------------------------------------
Patty
"bushbadee" <bush...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:geiFc.1000$qw1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> The only place that the word dog appears in the NT is in Peter and it does
> not refer to gentiles
(Matthew 15:22)
And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have
mercy
on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon."
But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him,
saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us."
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me."
And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread
and throw it to the dogs."
> > >
> > >
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>
>>
>> How can there be equality when the
>> man makes all the decisions and the
>> woman submits to his authority?
>> No way is that equality. That
>> is Fundamentalist Christian
>> teaching, but it's not mainstream
>> Christian teaching.
>
>Fundamental Christianty teaches the following:
>
>The husband is to discuss everything with his wife and they pray together
>about the matter. If they come to an agreement, well done. If they still
>cannot agree, then the man has to make the decision, as responsibility -
>since he is to be the head of the household - rests upon him before God. By
>making a decision he alone takes responsibility for the outcome.
>
>When there is a disagreement between husband and wife, a decision is still
>to be made. The biblical authority belongs to the husband, that after all
>other avenues were exhausted, he must decide over the matter.
>
>Otherwise how can a family function? The wife wants to go left, while the
>husband wants to go right.
Well, my family functions very well,
and we don't live like that.
I know my husband wouldn't want to
make a decision that made me unhappy,
and vice versa. So we have to compromise
so that we are both happy.
If the man believed in Fundamentalist
Christian teaching, then it would
be very tempting for him to make
decisions which pleased himself alone. In other
words, he would be tempted to become
selfish. Although he could fool himself, and
his wife, that he is only doing his best for
the family.
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Emma
>
>Rob Strom wrote:
>
>
>> You probably need to address her as Nagyságos Asszony
>> or Felseg, or something like that.
>
>Felség is the title of a king. Nagyságos Asszony is the title of a wealthy
>woman.
>
>I am not sure about religious titles. Püspök is for Catholics and
>Reformation high official. The Reformation and Baptists have Lelkész while
>the Catholics have pap.
>
>I am not really sure of all these titles.
>
>
>>> It might be easier to simply write: *pap*, which is simply a priest ;-)
>>
>> A Napsugár Robika Egyházban nincsen semmi pap.
>
>And why not? The Catholics have fathers, so Emma could be a mother (anya).
>Emma Anya. Sounds good.
I think I will stick with Emma Puspok :-) (those
diddlywotsits won't appear on my computer btw. I
think I'm doing something wrong!)
>> Robika Biboros
>
>Not Pope? I am disappointed.
>
Robika Biboros lesz Papa igazi nemsokara
(I hope that makes sense :-)
Szia!
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Rob Strom
...
>
> >> Robika Biboros
> >
> >Not Pope? I am disappointed.
> >
>
> Robika Biboros lesz Papa igazi nemsokara
>
> (I hope that makes sense :-)
>
This is where leaving off the accents gets confusing.
I can be "papa" (dad) but not "pápa" (pope), and not "pap" (priest).
(The last is another of those words where I can't hear a
difference with double-consonants: the name "Papp" sounds
to me exactly like the word "pap".)
Most már papa vagyok (3 gyerekem van); de sose leszek pápa.
As has been discussed in the past, the LMRS church
has neither autocracy nor the principle of
ex cathedra revelation; hence no pope.
It tries to keep a broad tent for all who wish to
improve the world and teach commitment to study,
service, and acts of loving kindness
rather than to dogma and salvation through "the right faith".
Sziatok,
Rob Strom/Robika Biboros
Emma
>>
>> (I hope that makes sense :-)
>>
>
>This is where leaving off the accents gets confusing.
>
>I can be "papa" (dad) but not "pápa" (pope), and not "pap" (priest).
>(The last is another of those words where I can't hear a
>difference with double-consonants: the name "Papp" sounds
>to me exactly like the word "pap".)
>
>Most már papa vagyok (3 gyerekem van); de sose leszek pápa.
>
Oh, I'm not sure that I understood that.
I think I announced to the newsgroup that you
will soon be a father again? :-)
Oooops! Sorry about that, Rob :-)
It's my computer. I can't seem to put the
oojamaflips in! I think someone has palmed
me off with a rubbish one.
>As has been discussed in the past, the LMRS church
>has neither autocracy nor the principle of
>ex cathedra revelation; hence no pope.
>
>It tries to keep a broad tent for all who wish to
>improve the world and teach commitment to study,
>service, and acts of loving kindness
>rather than to dogma and salvation through "the right faith".
>
>Sziatok,
>
>Rob Strom/Robika Biboros
Well I think you should definitely reconsider
this Pope business, Rob :-)
~~~~~
Emma
~~~~~
Hieron
Are you learning Hungarian from Rob? I am impressed :-)
--
Hieron
Hieron
> Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:<cc9a4...@drn.newsguy.com>... ...
>>
>> >> Robika Biboros
>> >
>> >Not Pope? I am disappointed.
>> >
>>
>> Robika Biboros lesz Papa igazi nemsokara
>>
>> (I hope that makes sense :-)
>>
>
> This is where leaving off the accents gets confusing.
>
> I can be "papa" (dad) but not "pápa" (pope), and not "pap" (priest).
> (The last is another of those words where I can't hear a
> difference with double-consonants: the name "Papp" sounds
> to me exactly like the word "pap".)
The last one "Papp" is simply doubling the last consonant to make it a
family name. It comes from the noun "pap" (I believe), but the word has no
meaning in itself.
>
> Most már papa vagyok (3 gyerekem van); de sose leszek pápa.
Sohasem tudhatod :-)
>
> As has been discussed in the past, the LMRS church
> has neither autocracy nor the principle of
> ex cathedra revelation; hence no pope.
>
> It tries to keep a broad tent for all who wish to
> improve the world and teach commitment to study,
> service, and acts of loving kindness
> rather than to dogma and salvation through "the right faith".
>
> Sziatok,
>
> Rob Strom/Robika Biboros
--
Hieron
don't spam me]@slater.net Joe Slater
wrote:
>Interesting. It reminds me of a passage in the Talmud where the
>rabbis agree that the property of Gentiles is like unclaimed land in
>the desert -- the first Jew who lays claim to it, owns it.
There is no such passage, because it's not true. I know the citation
from another pro-Nazi website linked to your own:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_54.html
Here's what your page highlights:
>>Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen
>> is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it
>>acquires ownership.
Here's the very next line, part of the same statement by the same
person:
>>The reason is that as soon as the heathen receives the money he ceases
>>to be the owner, whereas the Jew does not become the owner till he
>>obtains the deed of sale. Hence [in the interval] the land is like
>>desert land and the first occupier becomes the owner.
The passage is explicitly talking about land *sold* by a "heathen". I
put that word in inverted commas because as the Talmud will later make
clear, they're speculating about land transfership of the people of
the period, amongst whom they were living.
It's the start of a discussion about laws governing real-estate
transactions, and the position of Rab Judah is that since "heathens"
do not perform traditional methods of transferring property they can
sell their land and receive payment for it, but a Jew purchasing it
from them does not acquire the land until he performs a formal act of
acquisition - e.g., by plowing it. Until this is done the land can be
claimed by anybody, since its former owner (the "heathen") has
renounced his ownership and the Jew has not yet taken possession.
So the passage expressly affects the rights of Jews, not of non-Jews.
It says the exact opposite of what you claim. And anyone who cares to
check it on that pro-Nazi website can do so, and can see the careful
highlighting made so that people like you can lie about it. This is a
smoking gun aimed at your behavior. Why highlight half a statement, if
not to instruct racists like you in deception?
If I were in the USA I'd be proud of my country and the great things
it has done in defeating evil. I'd be ashamed to be a snivelling Nazi
like you, the grovelling admirer of tyrants and madmen. Here's a link
to your website for the benefit of other readers. They can see that I
quite literally mean that you're an admirer of the Nazis and other
trash:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/sfarney2/index.html
And finally, here's the continuation of your lies:
>Thus, a
>Jew cannot commit "theft" from a Gentile, even when the Jew takes the
>Gentile's property or defrauds him.
The very same passage that you referred to shows you to be a liar,
since it explicitly talks about Jews buying things from non-Jews.
>Of course, I don't have to supply you with references -- you are so
>familiar with the Talmud, you know exactly where that passage is.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
jds
Slade Farney
Pro-Nazi? You mean that website is advocating "Germany for Germans",
a rollback of the Treaty of Versaille, and abdication of the Weimer
Republic? Wow. I never noticed that. Aren't you the intellectual
purist.
The highlighting on that page is quite obviously related to the little
square in the left margine that links to a passage in the text by
Elizabeth Dilling. If you read the explanitary text, you learn that
the highlighting echoes the underlining Dilling used in her book,
nothing more, nothing less.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/structure.html
The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com
explains in the article on "Gentiles" the relative property rights of
Jews and Gentiles:
====
The barbarian Gentiles who could not be prevailed upon to observe law
and order were not to be benefited by the Jewish civil laws, framed to
regulate a stable and orderly society, and based on reciprocity. The
passage in Moses' farewell address: "The Lord came from Sinai, and
rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran" (Deut.
xxxiii, 2), indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the
Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it, He
withdrew His "shining" legal protection from them, and transferred
their property rights to Israel, who observed His Law. A passage of
Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: "God came from Teman, and
the Holy One from Mount Paran … He stood, and measured the earth; he
beheld, and drove asunder the nations" (Hab. iii. 3-6); the Talmud
adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly refused
to obey the seven moral Noachian precepts, and hence had decided to
outlaw them (B. K. 38a).
====
Moreover, anyone familiar with the Old Testament knows that Hebrews
viewed the "Promised Land" (occupied by Gentiles) as unclaimed lane in
the desert -- theirs to take, depopulate, and use as they sought fit.
If one were in search of the most vicious people on the planet, the
Nazis would not necessarily be the first choice. Hitler made a number
of attempts to avoid the war with Britain, and sought a peacful
resultion to the tensions of Europe.
Moses and Joshua, however, had none of that softness about them. The
lands of Canaan were to be depopluated and they went about it with a
will. They burned towns and massacred the inhabitants right down to
the suckling child. They criss-crossed the land, storming town after
town, and the sites of their war crimes are chronicled in the Old
Testament as though they were great victories.
Yeah man, another village of farmer families up in smoke, with every
man woman and child reduced to hamburger.
Joshua 8:18
And the LORD said unto Joshua, Stretch out the spear that is in thy
hand toward Ai; for I will give it into thine hand. And Joshua
stretched out the spear that he had in his hand toward the city.
And the ambush arose quickly out of their place, and they ran as soon
as he had stretched out his hand: and they entered into the city, and
took it, and hasted and set the city on fire.
And when the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and, behold, the
smoke of the city ascended up to heaven, and they had no power to flee
this way or that way: and the people that fled to the wilderness
turned back upon the pursuers.
How about the Pruim incident 1,000 years later? The same. Kill whom
you will, men, women, and babies, and take the property for yourself:
Esther 8:10-11
And [Mordicai] wrote in the king Ahasuerus' name, and sealed it with
the king's ring, and sent letters by posts on horseback, and riders on
mules, camels, and young dromedaries:
Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather
themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay
and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that
would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil
of them for a prey,
> If I were in the USA I'd be proud of my country and the great things
> it has done in defeating evil.
Bombing children in the villages and cities of Iraq, Serbia,
Afghanistan, Panama, ...?
Recently, the United States has taken on the character of the ancient
Hebrews, with their endless appetite for human blood. If you are
proud of this, Joe Slater, I will not attempt to characterize your
spirit. You draw of yourself a portrait that no one would paint of
another.
--Slade
Patricia Heil
Slade of course has completely ignored threads showing how Jewish courts
avoided executions. But that's his general ignorance. Stay proud, Joe,
because you can't help but be more intelligent and better educated that
Slade.
don't spam me]@slater.net Joe Slater
>> check it on that pro-Nazi website can do so, and can see the careful
>> highlighting made so that people like you can lie about it. This is a
>> smoking gun aimed at your behavior. Why highlight half a statement, if
>> not to instruct racists like you in deception?
On 6 Jul 2004 09:08:10 -0700, sfa...@bigfoot.com (Slade Farney)
wrote:
>Pro-Nazi? You mean that website is advocating "Germany for Germans",
>a rollback of the Treaty of Versaille, and abdication of the Weimer
>Republic?
Not as far as I've noticed, no. It's a website explicitly set up to
promote the views and literature of Elizabeth Dilling, the notorious
shill for the Nazis during WW2.
>The highlighting on that page is quite obviously related to the little
>square in the left margine that links to a passage in the text by
>Elizabeth Dilling. If you read the explanitary text, you learn that
>the highlighting echoes the underlining Dilling used in her book,
>nothing more, nothing less.
She presents the same lie that you do, and anyone who cares to check
the reference can see how she does it. Frankly I'm amazed that you
guys are so transparent. It would be better for you not to give
sources at all, than to give ones that so readily demonstrate your
decptions.
I find it interesting that you don't address the substance of my
message at all. You don't address the fact that the supposed source
for your belief is absolutely false. You don't address the fact that
your mentor quotes the first of two adjacent sentences and not the
second. You instead describe her use of highlighting, and you don't
even respond to the fact that *that* is deceptive.
>Moreover, anyone familiar with the Old Testament knows that Hebrews
>viewed the "Promised Land" (occupied by Gentiles) as unclaimed lane in
>the desert -- theirs to take, depopulate, and use as they sought fit.
No. The land of Israel was explicitly given by G-d to the children of
Jacob, who was called Israel. Hence the name. It wasn't some random
territory they chose to pick up on their travels. And what has this to
do with your lies about that Talmudic passage? It's a further red
herring.
>If one were in search of the most vicious people on the planet, the
>Nazis would not necessarily be the first choice.
I was talking about your lie about the Talmud, not your heroes. But
what would this have to do with anything, even if it were true? Your
ideological mentors are rightly despised by normal people; even their
name has become a term of abuse.
>Hitler made a number
>of attempts to avoid the war with Britain, and sought a peacful
>resultion to the tensions of Europe.
This has nothing to do with the original message, which was about the
Talmudic passage and the way you lied about it. But as for tensions,
they primarily existed in his poisonous little mind, and his "peaceful
resolutions" consisted of offering to take over countries without a
formal invasion.
>> If I were in the USA I'd be proud of my country and the great things
>> it has done in defeating evil.
>Recently, the United States has taken on the character of the ancient
>Hebrews, with their endless appetite for human blood.
Feel free to move to a country more sympathetic to your beliefs.
jds
Slade Farney
> "Slade Farney" <sfa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:abe991f.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > Joe Slater <joe[please don't spam me]@slater.net> wrote in message
> news:<ifmie0l9dj4a63olt...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 1 Jul 2004 23:37:25 -0700, sfa...@bigfoot.com (Slade Farney)
> > > wrote:
> > > >Interesting. It reminds me of a passage in the Talmud where the
> > > >rabbis agree that the property of Gentiles is like unclaimed land in
> > > >the desert -- the first Jew who lays claim to it, owns it.
> > >
> > > There is no such passage, because it's not true. I know the citation
> > > from another pro-Nazi website linked to your own:
> > > http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_54.html
> > >
> > > Here's what your page highlights:
> > > >> Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen
> > > >> is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it
> > > >> acquires ownership.
> > >
> > > Here's the very next line, part of the same statement by the same
> > > person:
> > >
> > > >> The reason is that as soon as the heathen receives the money he ceases
> > > >> to be the owner, whereas the Jew does not become the owner till he
> > > >> obtains the deed of sale. Hence [in the interval] the land is like
> > > >> desert land and the first occupier becomes the owner.
> > >
> > > The passage is explicitly talking about land *sold* by a "heathen".
"Land that has been sold by a heathen" is not the same as "the
property of a heathen". Those are mutually exclusive states for a
piece of land. That is, at one time the land is "the property of a
heathen". Then the heathen sells the land. Instantly, the land
ceases to be "property of a heathen" and it becomes "land that has
been sold by a heathen". It is never both at the same time.
In this passage of the Talmud, Rab Judah makes the statement, "The
property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land." quite
obviously, such property has not yet been sold.
What we have here is an argument between rabbis who are all supposed
to be experts in the law, interpreting the statments of an earlier
rabbi, just as you are doing. You yourself left out significant
statements. The very next sentence following what you quoted shows
the incredulity of the other rabbis: "Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did
Samuel really say this? Has not Samuel laid down that the law of the
Government is law, and the king has ordained that land is not to be
acquired save by means of a deed?"
Then they go into anecdotes about land that was sold by the king for
taxes due, and a rabbi who lost his title to property because someone
else put the first plow to it.
However, the footnote tells us that the one who puts a plow to the
land and thereby acquires title must compensate the purchaser for the
price of the land: "He must, however, reimburse the purchaser (v.
Rashb. and R. Gersh.)."
So even in that there it is not "on the same footing as unclaimed land
in the desert," because one does not "reimburse" for unowned land.
So the statement does not mean what you say it means.
> Slade of course has completely ignored threads showing how Jewish courts
> avoided executions. But that's his general ignorance.
Wow, Patty, can you ever switch subjects in a hurry. Do you even know
the topic of this thread?
--Slade
Slade Farney
> >Joe Slater <joe[please don't spam me]@slater.net> wrote in message news:<ifmie0l9dj4a63olt...@4ax.com>...
> >> It says the exact opposite of what you claim. And anyone who cares to
> >> check it on that pro-Nazi website can do so, and can see the careful
> >> highlighting made so that people like you can lie about it. This is a
> >> smoking gun aimed at your behavior. Why highlight half a statement, if
> >> not to instruct racists like you in deception?
>
> On 6 Jul 2004 09:08:10 -0700, sfa...@bigfoot.com (Slade Farney)
> wrote:
> >Pro-Nazi? You mean that website is advocating "Germany for Germans",
> >a rollback of the Treaty of Versaille, and abdication of the Weimer
> Not as far as I've noticed, no. It's a website explicitly set up to
> promote the views and literature of Elizabeth Dilling, the notorious
> shill for the Nazis during WW2.
I don't think so, slater. Dilling is only a small piece of that web
site.
> >The highlighting on that page is quite obviously related to the little
> >square in the left margine that links to a passage in the text by
> >Elizabeth Dilling. If you read the explanitary text, you learn that
> >the highlighting echoes the underlining Dilling used in her book,
> >nothing more, nothing less.
>
> She presents the same lie that you do, and anyone who cares to check
> the reference can see how she does it. Frankly I'm amazed that you
> guys are so transparent. It would be better for you not to give
> sources at all, than to give ones that so readily demonstrate your
> decptions.
That is not my web page. But if you know anything of Carol
Valentine's work, you would know that is how she does all of it. She
never makes a statement without supporting it, and she usually
reproduces the documentation for her views. Thus, the discerning
individual can read her statements and her sources and agree or
disagree. It is free of hoodwink and attempts to convince "by the
say-so of Carol Valentine".
> I find it interesting that you don't address the substance of my
> message at all. You don't address the fact that the supposed source
> for your belief is absolutely false. You don't address the fact that
> your mentor quotes the first of two adjacent sentences and not the
> second.
You are wrong, Slater. You quoted from that page yourself. There is
nothing missing from that chapter of the Talmud, nor from the entire
book. It is all there.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_54.html#PARTb
> You instead describe her use of highlighting, and you don't
> even respond to the fact that *that* is deceptive.
I let you make your statements. Why should you object to having free
air time? The web page is not mine to defend. You misunderstood the
highlighting, and I explained the highlighting. What are you bent out
of shape about?
> >Moreover, anyone familiar with the Old Testament knows that Hebrews
> >viewed the "Promised Land" (occupied by Gentiles) as unclaimed lane in
> >the desert -- theirs to take, depopulate, and use as they sought fit.
>
> No. The land of Israel was explicitly given by G-d to the children of
> Jacob, who was called Israel. Hence the name. It wasn't some random
> territory they chose to pick up on their travels.
Of course not. The voices in Moses' head told him he had to kill all
those people. And that made it all right, didn't it?
The Son of Sam also had voices in his head telling him to kill people.
We call that condition "psychosis".
I don't mind when people talk to their television sets or to their
daisies, or when they think their cat is commenting on the weather.
That is perfectly harmless. But when a fellow begins killing people
because a thundercloud tells him to, we know that guy is in trouble,
and we have to handle him. And if he persuades a whole flock of other
people to get involved in his killing spree, he is positively
dangerous.
> And what has this to
> do with your lies about that Talmudic passage? It's a further red
> herring.
No, that statement sums up Moses' philosophy regarding heathen
property, as supported by the rest of the material I supplied. The
text that follows in the Talmud is self contradictory and was
obviously a later justification.
I wouldn't try to make a case on any of that passage. It is obscure
and contradictory -- and even when fully understood, it is insane.
Property sold by a Jew transfers smoothely. Property sold by a
Gentile passes through a period when nobody owns it, until the Jew
"improves" it somehow. No doubt this rule is derived from some
curley-cue on the 7th letter of the third chakra of the word
"creation" in Genesis, but it is nuts.
But Joe, you are no genius. If you think you have found God in the
words of a psychotic cult leader who (maybe) lived 3500 years ago, go
for it. You preach his virtues, I'll preach his flaws.
> >If one were in search of the most vicious people on the planet, the
> >Nazis would not necessarily be the first choice.
>
> I was talking about your lie about the Talmud, not your heroes. But
> what would this have to do with anything, even if it were true? Your
> ideological mentors are rightly despised by normal people; even their
> name has become a term of abuse.
Ah, Joe, now you are being puerile. The Nazis are not my heroes nor
my ideological mentors, and you know it. You just say that because
you think it will draw blood, but it does not.
I have long ago learned that people attack the messenger when they
can't handle the message.
--Slade
Patricia Heil
More of Slade making up things to suit himself. It is completely illogical
to claim that somebody sold something they didn't own. What is he saying,
that pagans owned nothing but sold things they had stolen?
Slade is an ignoramus and liar and you should disengage now and start
studying what Talmud really says because you are never going to hear it from
Slade.
don't spam me]@slater.net Joe Slater
>> promote the views and literature of Elizabeth Dilling, the notorious
>> shill for the Nazis during WW2.
On 7 Jul 2004 02:04:05 -0700, sfa...@bigfoot.com (Slade Farney)
wrote:
>I don't think so, slater. Dilling is only a small piece of that web
>site.
What is it with racists and proper names? You guys misspell them,
lowercase them, and refer to people by their surnames without an
honorific. It doesn't hurt me; it just demonstrates that you lack the
ability to act in a civilised manner. Anyway, as people who visit the
website can verify, Elizabeth Dilling is the first name mentioned and
her monomaniacal and laborious work is presented there prominently and
linked into the Talmudic text. In fact the website is based around it;
the Talmud was scanned in (at the cost of how many hours!) because
they thought it supported her book. In a way, I'm impressed; nobody
with a grain of common sense would have thought the labor to be worth
the effort.
>That is not my web page. But if you know anything of Carol
>Valentine's work, you would know that is how she does all of it. She
>never makes a statement without supporting it, and she usually
>reproduces the documentation for her views. Thus, the discerning
>individual can read her statements and her sources and agree or
>disagree. It is free of hoodwink and attempts to convince "by the
>say-so of Carol Valentine".
But she quotes half a reference. How can this not be an attempt to
deceive? The second sentence explicitly contradicts her claim, and
yours.
>> I find it interesting that you don't address the substance of my
>> message at all. You don't address the fact that the supposed source
>> for your belief is absolutely false. You don't address the fact that
>> your mentor quotes the first of two adjacent sentences and not the
>> second.
>You are wrong, Slater. You quoted from that page yourself. There is
>nothing missing from that chapter of the Talmud, nor from the entire
>book. It is all there.
>http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_54.html#PARTb
She *quotes* the first of two sentences. Here's what she says:
ED>The Talmudic authority which holds that Gentile property is like
ED>unclaimed land in the desert is the Talmud Book of Baba Bathra,
ED>Folio 54b, there cited. The passage actually appears on page 222 of
ED>the Soncino edition: "Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The
ED>property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land;
ED>whoever first occupies it acquires ownership."
Now, this is a lie. The very next sentence, said by the same rabbinic
authority says:
"The reason is that as soon as the heathen receives the money he
ceases to be the owner, whereas the Jew does not become the owner till
he obtains the deed of sale. Hence [in the interval] the land is like
desert land and the first occupier becomes the owner."
This utterly contradicts Elizabeth Dilling's claim! No honest person
could make such a claim. In fact, no honest person does.
>I wouldn't try to make a case on any of that passage. It is obscure
>and contradictory -- and even when fully understood, it is insane.
You referred us to that passage. Now that you've been shown to be a
liar you claim that it's obscure, contradictory, and insane. It didn't
suffer those deficiencies when you thougght it bolstered your case.
It's perfectly clear; I could have studied this passage when I was a
child.
>Property sold by a Jew transfers smoothely. Property sold by a
>Gentile passes through a period when nobody owns it, until the Jew
>"improves" it somehow.
Actually, both Jews and non-Jews have to perform an act of property
transfer - the problem is that non-Jews of the time didn't do this.
I'm sure that a person in your position must have regular recourse to
legal aid; they'll probably be able to explain to you that even today
property transactions usually require a symbolic act of transfer, like
signing a deed. I know it's asking a lot, but the *third* statement in
that paragraph mentions the use of a deed to transfer property.
>But Joe, you are no genius. If you think you have found God in the
>words of a psychotic cult leader who (maybe) lived 3500 years ago, go
>for it. You preach his virtues, I'll preach his flaws.
You're going off on a tangent again. We're talking about your lies,
and the lies of the Nazi websites you use.
>Ah, Joe, now you are being puerile. The Nazis are not my heroes nor
>my ideological mentors, and you know it.
Really? Because here I am talking about the Talmud, and you jump into
a defense of gentle Hitler, meek and mild. I look at your website and
half the links seem to be similarly obsessed with those very butch
Aryans in their lederhosen. We started this thread witha reference to
the website built around Elizabeth Dilling's works. You know, Hitler's
apologist in the USA.
jds
don't spam me]@slater.net Joe Slater
On 6 Jul 2004 23:31:40 -0700, sfa...@bigfoot.com (Slade Farney)
wrote:
>"Land that has been sold by a heathen" is not the same as "the
>property of a heathen". Those are mutually exclusive states for a
>piece of land. That is, at one time the land is "the property of a
>heathen". Then the heathen sells the land. Instantly, the land
>ceases to be "property of a heathen" and it becomes "land that has
>been sold by a heathen". It is never both at the same time.
Readers are welcome to check the text and verify that I'm right, and
that Slade Farney is not. Here you go:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_54.html#54a_3
Look at the highlighted text, and then read the unhighlighted sentence
which follows it: "as soon as the heathen receives the money he ceases
to be the owner ..."
>The very next sentence following what you quoted shows
>the incredulity of the other rabbis: "Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did
>Samuel really say this? Has not Samuel laid down that the law of the
>Government is law, and the king has ordained that land is not to be
>acquired save by means of a deed?"
Which further demonstrates that the land isn't considered ownerless.
If land transfer requires a deed of sale then it's not desert land, is
it? You keep refuting your own claims.
>However, the footnote tells us that the one who puts a plow to the
>land and thereby acquires title must compensate the purchaser for the
>price of the land: "He must, however, reimburse the purchaser (v.
>Rashb. and R. Gersh.)."
>
>So even in that there it is not "on the same footing as unclaimed land
>in the desert," because one does not "reimburse" for unowned land.
>
>So the statement does not mean what you say it means.
Um, no, that's exactly what I said it means. But I'm glad that you
just refuted yourself for the third time. Who is being reimbursed? The
purchaser. So the land was *purchased*. Imagine that I'm saying this
with a really long drawl: puurrrrchhhaaaased. I hope that made it
clearer.
jds
Slade Farney
> >> [www.come-and-hear.com is] a website explicitly set up to
> >> promote the views and literature of Elizabeth Dilling, the notorious
> >> shill for the Nazis during WW2.
>
> wrote:
> >I don't think so, slater. Dilling is only a small piece of that web
> >site.
>
> What is it with racists and proper names? You guys misspell them,
> lowercase them, and refer to people by their surnames without an
> honorific. It doesn't hurt me; it just demonstrates that you lack the
> ability to act in a civilised manner.
Then you will no doubt be chastising your old friend who calls himslef
"cockroach":
On 2004-07-04 12:09:52 EST cockroach <mr...@zog.gov> wrote in message news:<Xns951C675FDF...@207.225.159.8>...
> i am the e e cummings of usenet
Looking forward to you calling him a Nazi because he does not use the
caps key.
> Anyway, as people who visit the
> website can verify, Elizabeth Dilling is the first name mentioned and
> her monomaniacal and laborious work is presented there prominently and
> linked into the Talmudic text. In fact the website is based around it;
> the Talmud was scanned in (at the cost of how many hours!) because
> they thought it supported her book. In a way, I'm impressed; nobody
> with a grain of common sense would have thought the labor to be worth
> the effort.
>
> >That is not my web page. But if you know anything of Carol
> >Valentine's work, you would know that is how she does all of it. She
> >never makes a statement without supporting it, and she usually
> >reproduces the documentation for her views. Thus, the discerning
> >individual can read her statements and her sources and agree or
> >disagree. It is free of hoodwink and attempts to convince "by the
> >say-so of Carol Valentine".
>
> But she quotes half a reference.
Who? Carol Valentine?
> How can this not be an attempt to
> deceive? The second sentence explicitly contradicts her claim, and
> yours.
Where does Carol Valentine quote this text?
> >> I find it interesting that you don't address the substance of my
> >> message at all. You don't address the fact that the supposed source
> >> for your belief is absolutely false. You don't address the fact that
> >> your mentor quotes the first of two adjacent sentences and not the
> >> second.
> >You are wrong, Slater. You quoted from that page yourself. There is
> >nothing missing from that chapter of the Talmud, nor from the entire
> >book. It is all there.
> >http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_54.html#PARTb
>
> She *quotes* the first of two sentences. Here's what she says:
>
> ED>The Talmudic authority which holds that Gentile property is like
> ED>unclaimed land in the desert is the Talmud Book of Baba Bathra,
> ED>Folio 54b, there cited. The passage actually appears on page 222 of
> ED>the Soncino edition: "Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The
> ED>property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land;
> ED>whoever first occupies it acquires ownership."
>
> Now, this is a lie. The very next sentence, said by the same rabbinic
> authority says:
> "The reason is that as soon as the heathen receives the money he
> ceases to be the owner, whereas the Jew does not become the owner till
> he obtains the deed of sale. Hence [in the interval] the land is like
> desert land and the first occupier becomes the owner."
>
> This utterly contradicts Elizabeth Dilling's claim!
Oho! Now you are talking about Dilling! To use your words, "How can
this not be an attempt to deceive?"
> No honest person
> could make such a claim. In fact, no honest person does.
Well you can characterize it as you will, but you might get a
headstart on eating your shorts, because a little research shows that
you cut into the middle of the Dilling quote.
Earlier in her discussion, Dilling refers to a passage in Funk and
Waqnall's 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, now online at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com, the article on Gentiles, reproduced
for easy reference in her book as Exhibit 270 and shown on the web
page at http://www.come-and-hear.com/je/je_619.html#E270. that
passage (in JE) reads as follows:
"... the presumption is that the Gentile obtained possession by
seizure, [therefore] the property is considered public property,
like unclaimed land in the desert (B. B. 54b)."
Here is the full text from that JE page:
JE> Similarly, the mandate concerning the oppression of or
JE> withholding wages from a hireling brother or neighbor, or a
JE> domiciled alien (Deut. xxiv. 14-15) who observes the Noachian
JE> laws, is not applicable in the case of a Gentile. That is to
JE> say, a Gentile may be employed at reduced wages, which need not
JE> be paid promptly on the same day, but may be paid in accordance
JE> with the usual custom of the place. The question arose whether a
JE> Jew might share in the spoils gained by a Gentile through
JE> robbery. One Talmudic authority reasoned that the Gentile
JE> exerted himself to obtain the ill-gotten property much less than
JE> in earning his wages, to which the Mosaic law is not applicable;
JE> hence property seized by a Gentile, if otherwise unclaimed, is
JE> public property and may be used by any person. Another authority
JE> decided that a Jew might not profit by it (B. M. 111b).
JE> R. Ashi decided that a Jew who sells a Gentile Ashi's landed
JE> property bordering on the land of another Jew shall be
JE> excommunicated, not only on the ground that the Gentile laws do
JE> not provide for neighbors' "boundary privileges" [H] but also
JE> because the Jewish neighbor may claim "thou hast caused a lion
JE> to lie on my border." The ban shall not be raised unless the
JE> seller stipulates to keep the [page 621] Jew free from all
JE> possible damage arising from any act of the Gentile
JE> (B. K. 114a). The same Ashi noticed in a vineyard a broken
JE> vine-branch bearing a bunch of grapes, and instructed his
JE> attendant, if he found that it belonged to a Gentile, to fetch
JE> it; if to a Jew, to leave it. The Gentile owner overheard the
JE> order, and asked: "Is it right to take from a Gentile?" Ashi
JE> replied: "Yes, because a Gentile would demand money, but a Jew
JE> would not" (ib., 118b). This was an adroit and sarcastic
JE> answer. In truth, Ashi coincided with the opinion of the
JE> authority stated above: namely, that, as the presumption is that
JE> the Gentile obtained possession by seizure, the property is
JE> considered public property, like unclaimed land in the desert
JE> (B. B. 54b). The consensus of opinion, however, was against this
JE> authority. R. Simeon the Pious quotes to show that legal
JE> possession was required even in dealing with the Seven Nations:
JE> And thou shalt consume ["eat the spoils"] all the people which
JE> the Lord thy God shall deliver thee" (Deut. vii. 6. Hebr.),
JE> meaning that Israel could claim the land only as conquerors, not
JE> otherwise (B. K. 113b).
Your words again:
> No honest person
> could make such a claim. In fact, no honest person does.
OK, buddy, Funk and Wagnall was staffed by liars. Nothing new. The
whole world conspires to make you Moses-worshipers look bad, why not
the Jewish Encyclopedia, too?
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the rabbinical consensus is that
you cannot steal from a Gentile or rob him -- unless you first cut his
throat and take his women and children into slavery. Then, after you
have raped his wife and female children (call it "the usage rights of
a slave owner"), you take his land quite legally. Such is "conquest"
in the history of the Hebrews, and THAT is the consensus of opinion,
as given by the Jewish Encyclopedia:
[repeat from above]
JE> The consensus of opinion, however, was against this
JE> authority. R. Simeon the Pious quotes to show that legal
JE> possession was required even in dealing with the Seven Nations:
JE> And thou shalt consume ["eat the spoils"] all the people which
JE> the Lord thy God shall deliver thee" (Deut. vii. 6. Hebr.),
JE> meaning that Israel could claim the land only as conquerors, not
JE> otherwise (B. K. 113b).
> >I wouldn't try to make a case on any of that passage. It is obscure
> >and contradictory -- and even when fully understood, it is insane.
I withdraw those remarks. Now that I fully understand the passage, I
see it is not insane -- it is utterly psychotic.
> You referred us to that passage. Now that you've been shown to be a
> liar you claim that it's obscure, contradictory, and insane. It didn't
> suffer those deficiencies when you thougght it bolstered your case.
I did not have a wise teacher such as yourself at that time to guide
me through the references. I want to thank you for the assistance,
but I know you are so modest, you probably will not accept my
gratitude.
> It's perfectly clear; I could have studied this passage when I was a
> child.
No foolin'. I should have sought you out earlier. But I guess only
when one is truly ready will the Teacher appear.
--Slade
Slade Farney
> >> [www.come-and-hear.com is] a website explicitly set up to
> >> promote the views and literature of Elizabeth Dilling, the notorious
> >> shill for the Nazis during WW2.
>
Who? Carol Valentine?
> "The reason is that as soon as the heathen receives the money he
> ceases to be the owner, whereas the Jew does not become the owner till
> he obtains the deed of sale. Hence [in the interval] the land is like
> desert land and the first occupier becomes the owner."
>
Patricia Heil
news:<onrne0ttfcdifji3a...@4ax.com>...
> > >Joe Slater <joe[please don't spam me]@slater.net> wrote in message
Cutting to the chase. Slade has to rely on anti-Semitic sites like Carol
Valentine's, and on Jewish Encyclopedia which has known errors, because he
refuses to study anything that might remotely disturb the sandcastle of his
own imaginings that he calls truth.
bushbadee
> Pro-Nazi? You mean that website is advocating "Germany for Germans",
> a rollback of the Treaty of Versaille, and abdication of the Weimer
> Republic? Wow. I never noticed that. Aren't you the intellectual
> purist.
Hey shit head, I have news for you.
Germany for the Jews is more like it.
The Germans (Huns) did not settle in Germany till about 1000 CE.
There were Jews and others living there long before the HUns arrived and
took the land by force.
Jan Pompe
> Ah but the word dogs is used quite a bit, about 6 or 7 times.
>
> Here is one
> 1. Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to
> you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.
> 2. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
> 3. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and
> rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the fl
>
> non of them refers to gentiles as I see ith though.
>
> "the NT, Moshe?
See Patty's post.